Chicago Democratic state Sen. Martin Sandoval’s heart is in the right place, along with the heart of those who gave the proposal the 36-2 approval needed to send it to the House, but there are guidelines that need to be clearly established — and clear punishment for law enforcement agencies that bend those guidelines.

Sandoval’s interest is in allowing drones to provide surveillance at large public gatherings, such as concerts.

But the proposal goes on to include “large-scale events” at sports or entertainment events, stadiums, convention halls, amusement facilities or events open to the public on government property.

Further, there is nothing to indicate a drone focused on the crowd could have done anything to prevent the tragic Oct. 1 shooting at the Route 91 Harvest music festival when a gunman killed 58 and injured 851. While there is not an expectation of privacy in public, the shooter was firing from the window of a nearby hotel. To capture information that would have been most crucial to police, a drone would have had to cross the line between private and public and surveil the windows of hotel guests.

More disconcerting is that the technology is subject to hacking, potentially allowing sensitive information to fall into the wrong hands or for control of the drone itself to be commandeered.

There also should be clear rules about what information police are allowed to collect and use. There is a big difference between seeing a crowd from 500 feet in the air and using the high-powered spy tool to zero in on individuals in the crowd. What happens when a law enforcement agency equips an unmanned aerial device with facial recognition software? What are the guarantees drones will not be used to gather information about groups or individuals because of their opinions or constitutionally protected activities?

There aren’t. That’s why more and more state legislatures are tightening law enforcement use of drones for surveillance purposes.

Public perception has chilled some law enforcement groups’ use of the devices, as well.

These eyes in the sky can have some beneficial uses — search and rescue and accessing specific dangerous situations — but when the word “surveillance” comes into place, people have a right to ask questions.